Can anyone explain why the result is 252.99999999999997 and not 253? What should be used instead to get 253?
double x = 2.11;
double y = 0.42;
print(((x + y) * 100)); // print 252.99999999999997
I am basically trying to convert a currency value with 2 decimal (ie £2.11) into pence/cent (ie 211p)
Thanks
In short: Because many fractional double values are not precise, and adding imprecise values can give even more imprecise results. That's an inherent property of IEEE-754 floating point numbers, which is what Dart (and most other languages and the CPUs running them) are working with.
Neither of the rational numbers 2.11 and 0.42 are precisely representable as a double value. When you write 2.11 as source code, the meaning of that is the actual double values that is closest to the mathematical number 2.11.
The value of 2.11 is precisely 2.109999999999999875655021241982467472553253173828125.
The value of 0.42 is precisely 0.419999999999999984456877655247808434069156646728515625.
As you can see, both are slightly smaller than the value you intended.
Then you add those two values, which gives the precise double result 2.529999999999999804600747665972448885440826416015625. This loses a few of the last digits of the 0.42 to rounding, and since both were already smaller than 2.11 and 0.42, the result is now even more smaller than 2.53.
Finally you multiply that by 100, which gives the precise result 252.999999999999971578290569595992565155029296875.
This is different from the double value 253.0.
The double.toString method doesn't return a string of the exact value, but it does return different strings for different values, and since the value is different from 253.0, it must return a different string. It then returns a string of the shortest number which is still closer to the result than to the next adjacent double value, and that is the string you see.
Related
I know that storing single value (or double) can not be very precise. so storing for example 125.12 can result in 125.1200074788. now in delphi their is some usefull function like samevalue or comparevalue that take an epsilon as param and say that 125.1200074788 or for exemple 125.1200087952 is equal.
but i often see in code stuff like : if aSingleVar = 0 then ... and this in fact as i see always work. why ? why storing for exemple 0 in a single var keep the exact value ?
Only values that are in form m*2^e, where m and e are integers can be stored in a floating point variable (not all of them though, it depends on precision). 0 has this form, and 125.12 does not, as it equals 3128/25, and 1/25 is not an integer power of 2.
Comparing 125.12 to a single (or double) precision variable will most probably return always False, because a literal 125.12 will be treated as an extended precision number, and no single (or double) precision number would have such a value.
Looks like a good use for the BigDecimals unit by Rudy Velthuis. Millions of decimal places of accuracy and precision.
I'm using flex and bison to read in a file that has text but also floating point numbers. Everything seems to be working fine, except that I've noticed that it sometimes changes the values of the numbers. For example,
-4.036 is (sometimes) becoming -4.0359998, and
-3.92 is (sometimes) becoming -3.9200001
The .l file is using the lines
static float fvalue ;
sscanf(specctra_dsn_file_yytext, "%f", &fvalue) ;
The values pass through the yacc parser and arrive at my own .cpp file as floats with the values described. Not all of the values are changed, and even the same value is changed in some occurrences, and unchanged in others.
Please let me know if I should add more information.
float cannot represent every number. It is typically 32-bit and so is limited to at most 232 different numbers. -4.036 and -3.92 are not in that set on your platform.
<float> is typically encoded using IEEE 754 single-precision binary floating-point format: binary32 and rarely encodes fractional decimal values exactly. When assigning values like "-3.92", the actual values saved will be one close to that, but maybe not exact. IOWs, the conversion of -3.92 to float was not exact had it been done by assignment or sscanf().
float x1 = -3.92;
// float has an exact value of -3.9200000762939453125
// View # 6 significant digits -3.92000
// OP reported -3.9200001
float x2 = -4.036;
// float has an exact value of -4.035999774932861328125
// View # 6 significant digits -4.03600
// OP reported -4.0359998
Printing these values to beyond a certain number of significant decimal digits (typically 6 for float) can be expected to not match the original assignment. See Printf width specifier to maintain precision of floating-point value for a deeper C post.
OP could lower expectations of how many digits will match. Alternatively could use double and then only see this problem when typically more than 15 significant decimal digits are viewed.
Can somebody explain why multiplying by 100 here gives a less accurate result but multiplying by 10 twice gives a more accurate result?
± % sc
Loading development environment (Rails 3.0.1)
>> 129.95 * 100
12994.999999999998
>> 129.95*10
1299.5
>> 129.95*10*10
12995.0
If you do the calculations by hand in double-precision binary, which is limited to 53 significant bits, you'll see what's going on:
129.95 = 1.0000001111100110011001100110011001100110011001100110 x 2^7
129.95*100 = 1.1001011000010111111111111111111111111111111111111111011 x 2^13
This is 56 significant bits long, so rounded to 53 bits it's
1.1001011000010111111111111111111111111111111111111111 x 2^13, which equals
12994.999999999998181010596454143524169921875
Now 129.95*10 = 1.01000100110111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 x 2^10
This is 54 significant bits long, so rounded to 53 bits it's 1.01000100111 x 2^10 = 1299.5
Now 1299.5 * 10 = 1.1001011000011 x 2^13 = 12995.
First off: you are looking at the string representation of the result, not the actual result itself. If you really want to compare the two results, you should format both results explicitly, using String#% and you should format both results the same way.
Secondly, that's just how binary floating point numbers work. They are inexact, they are finite and they are binary. All three mean that you get rounding errors, which generally look totally random, unless you happen to have memorized the entirety of IEEE754 and can recite it backwards in your sleep.
There is no floating point number exactly equal to 129.95. So your language uses a value which is close to it instead. When that value is multiplied by 100, the result is close to 12995, but it just so happens to not equal 12995. (It is also not exactly equal to 100 times the original value it used in place of 129.95.) So your interpreter prints a decimal number which is close to (but not equal to) the value of 129.95 * 100 and which shows you that it is not exactly 12995. It also just so happens that the result 129.95 * 10 is exactly equal to 1299.5. This is mostly luck.
Bottom line is, never expect equality out of any floating point arithmetic, only "closeness".
NSLog(#"CEIL %f",ceil(2/3));
should return 1. However, it shows:
CEIL 0.000000
Why and how to fix that problem? I use ceil([myNSArray count]/3) and it returns 0 when array count is 2.
The same rules as C apply: 2 and 3 are ints, so 2/3 is an integer divide. Integer division truncates so 2/3 produces the integer 0. That integer 0 will then be cast to a double precision float for the call to ceil, but ceil(0) is 0.
Changing the code to:
NSLog(#"CEIL %f",ceil(2.0/3.0));
Will display the result you're expecting. Adding the decimal point causes the constants to be recognised as double precision floating point numbers (and 2.0f is how you'd type a single precision floating point number).
Maudicus' solution works because (float)2/3 casts the integer 2 to a float and C's promotion rules mean that it'll promote the denominator to floating point in order to divide a floating point number by an integer, giving a floating point result.
So, your current statement ceil([myNSArray count]/3) should be changed to either:
([myNSArray count] + 2)/3 // no floating point involved
Or:
ceil((float)[myNSArray count]/3) // arguably more explicit
2/3 evaluates to 0 unless you cast it to a float.
So, you have to be careful with your values being turned to int's before you want.
float decValue = (float) 2/3;
NSLog(#"CEIL %f",ceil(decValue));
==>
CEIL 1.000000
For you array example
float decValue = (float) [myNSArray count]/3;
NSLog(#"CEIL %f",ceil(decValue));
It probably evaluates 2 and 3 as integers (as they are, obviously), evaluates the result (which is 0), and then converts it to float or double (which is also 0.00000). The easiest way to fix it is to type either 2.0f/3, 2/3.0f, or 2.0f/3.0f, (or without "f" if you wish, whatever you like more ;) ).
Hope it helps
I created a calculator class that does basic +,-, %, * and sin, cos, tan, sqrt and other math functions.
I have all the variables of type double, everything is working fine for big numbers, so I can calculate numbers like 1.35E122, but the problem is with extremely small numbers. For example if I do calculation 1/98556321 I get 0 where I would like to get something 1.01464E-8.
Should I rewrite my code so that I only manipulate NSDecimalNumber's and if so, what do I do with sin and cos math functions that accept only double and long double values.
1/98556321
This division gives you 0 because integer division is performed here - the result is an integer part of division. The following line should give you floating point result:
1/(double)98556321
integer/integer is always an integer
So either you convert the upper or the lower number to decimal
(double)1/98556321
or
1/(double)98556321
Which explicitely convert the number to double.
Happy coding....